Changes to BiographyEdit

Hello, You reversed my changes to David Perdue page. I did a lot of research on this topic and cited my references properly, the first time. I did not call that a minor edit, but two days later, somebody undid them. The references are the local newspaper, Houston Home Journal and the links are working to the archived articles. I called it minor the second time, because I was just redoing what was undone. What step am I missing? Dale Hoefer 00:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Missed email correspondenceEdit

Hi there Jonathunder, I just logged back in to Wikipedia after... hm... a while ;) I see a notification that you emailed me about the Heather Dale wiki page, but Gmail has conveniently eaten the email, and I am not sufficiently experienced with the wiki system to know if there's a way to retrieve a local copy. Would you mind emailing me again? Cheers, --Oh And Ben (talk) 23:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

NRHP contributions, tool availableEdit

Hi Jonathunder, thank you for your many contributions on NRHP topics, including new article Swede Prairie Progressive Farmers' Club just now, which showed up on my watchlist because it happened to link to some article i created. But hey, it looks to me like you must be painfully constructing NRHP infoboxes, when there is a much easier way available. Also you hand-created an NRHP document reference, when there is a fuller pre-prepared reference available to copy-paste, which also includes link to the available accompanying photos.

In the current article, the refnum showing in the infobox is incorrect, I guess probably a not-yet-fixed copy from a different infobox. If you do click on it, it brings you to NRHP doc and photos for a different site. When creating new articles (at least for NRHP listings before some date in 2014), try using the "NRHP infobox generator" created/supported by editor Elkman, starting at E.g. what you see for this NRHP is yield for the Swede Prairie topic. Note that includes mostly filled-out infobox which you can/should further customize a bit. It has the refnum already and some more stuff. It would be easier to start an article by copy-pasting that in, rather than customizing from a completely different NRHP site.

Also it includes a good draft NRHP document reference:

<ref name="nrhpdoc">{{cite web|url={{NRHP url|id=86001331}}|title=National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination: Swede Prairie Progressive Farmers' Club |publisher=[[National Park Service]]|author= |date= |accessdate=April 22, 2019}} With {{NRHP url|id=86001331|photos=y|title=accompanying pictures}}</ref>

Which includes link to the accompanying photos. What I do is further customize that reference, to add the author and date of prep (like you did already in your reference), and further to add a count of the number of photos and to mention the photos' year(s):

<ref name="nrhpdoc">{{cite web|url={{NRHP url|id=86001331}}|title=National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination: Swede Prairie Progressive Farmers' Club |publisher=[[National Park Service]]|author=Susan Granger |date=May 1985 |accessdate=April 22, 2019}} With {{NRHP url|id=86001331|photos=y|title=accompanying two photos from 1984-85}}</ref>

That reference displays as:[1]


  1. ^ Susan Granger (May 1985). "National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination: Swede Prairie Progressive Farmers' Club". National Park Service. Retrieved April 22, 2019. With accompanying two photos from 1984-85

Oh I see you used " |last=Granger |first=Susan ", which is a bit better I guess, instead of just "|author=Susan Granger".

I hope there is some helpful info for you here. Basically you should just start at or, and search for your NRHP. There is some more info about this at wp:NRHPHELP, too. Any which way you choose to do it, I am just glad you are contributing, and I hope you keep up your good work! cheers, --Doncram (talk) 00:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circularEdit

Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 03:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)Edit

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

OTD June 5Edit

I undid your edit on Selected anniversaries/June 5, because you took out two items that were having significant anniversaries (10th and 30th). I do appreciate the help, though I would prefer if you edit dates that I haven't done yet (in the page history, I'll have an edit with the summary "update for [year]"). Thanks. howcheng {chat} 15:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

So now I saw your edit on June 4 too. If Tiananmen was eligible again, that pushes Tank Man out of June 5, but the 2009 item still gets priority. Also, three of the items you picked (Daming, Antonio Luna, and Congo Civil War) were on last year, and June 5 happens to have a large pool of eligible articles, so it would be preferable to give some of those other items a chance (see the talk page for each year's change log). Thanks again. howcheng {chat} 16:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback and for your efforts as well to make the Main Page what it is. Jonathunder (talk) 21:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Mayo Clinic historyEdit

Hi, Jonathunder! I requested updates to History at Mayo Clinic. If you are still interested in updating this article, I appreciate your feedback.

Thanks! Audrey at Mayo Clinic (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Jonathunder! I updated my requested updates to History at Mayo Clinic based on your thoughts. If you are still interested in updating this article, I really appreciate your feedback. Audrey at Mayo Clinic (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


I've been generally saddened by the resignations in the wake of Framgate, and noticed that you had turned in the admin bit and are planning to step away from this site. While it's been awhile since we crossed paths, I recall you as an outstanding, thoughtful editor and admin, and Wikipedia will be poorer for your absence. I completely understand the reasons behind it—I just wanted to say that you've had a very positive impact here; I will miss running into you here and there, and I wish you luck in whatever you do with your reclaimed Wikipedia time. :) Take care. MastCell Talk 23:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Many thanks for all your hard work over the year. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Welcome back :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

with thanksEdit


some wildflowers of thanks and understanding --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The June 2019 Signpost is out!Edit

Sad to See You LeaveEdit

It is with sincere disappointment that I saw that you are phasing out of the project and I will be the first to welcome you back. If you ever find yourself driving through my neck of the woods, my coffee pot is always on! -- Dolotta (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I shared Dolotta's disappointment, and so I'm happy to see you back. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).

  Administrator changes

  28bytesAd OrientemAnsh666BeeblebroxBoing! said ZebedeeBU Rob13Dennis BrownDeorDoRDFloquenbeam1Flyguy649Fram2GadfiumGB fanJonathunderKusmaLectonarMoinkMSGJNickOd MishehuRamaSpartazSyrthissTheDJWJBscribe
1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

  Guideline and policy news

  • In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

  Technical news

  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


Hi, forgive me for being a busybody, but a couple of things about WP:CBAN. First, the ban is usually recorded at WP:Editing restrictions. Second, although not required, you can place a tag on the editor's userpage. A non-administrator did that, and I reverted because it's your call and because non-admins shouldn't be tagging other editor's userpages anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding WP:Editing restrictionsEdit

Hi, I believe that Mzmadmike shouldn't have been placed in Editing Restrictions, because it states that "editors who are subject to site bans are listed at Category:Banned Wikipedia users instead". Feel free to ignore this if I'm incorrect, that's just how I understand it and I wanted to bring it up to you. Best, -- Rockstonetalk to me! 01:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I think you're right, but I was just following the instructions in the above section. Jonathunder (talk) 02:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, I would undo it, but I really don't feel like drawing any more ire against Bbb23 (They're also wrong about non-administrators not being allowed to place CBAN tags on users, but that's a separate issue). I guess maybe ask another admin? -- Rockstonetalk to me! 02:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
There's nothing to undo because Jonathaunder hasn't put the user in editing restrictions. However, you bring up an interesting point because editing restrictions does say what you said, but that conflicts with WP:CBAN. If you want to do something useful, I would go to the talk page of WP:CBAN and point out the discrepancy because it should be resolved. As for the category, when Jonathaunder undid my revert at the user's userpage the ban tag automatically places the user in the category, but it's a hidden category. Hope this helps a bit.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Oops, I'm wrong, Jonathunder edited a section of it, and that doesn't show up in the history of the overall page. I'm not sure what I'd do at this point, but I think I'd undo the editing restriction edit, at least for the moment, but I don't see any of this as urgent, and I'm going off-wiki now.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I'll go make a note on the talk page of WP:CBAN about it, thank you for the suggestion! I think the reason indefinite bans aren't supposed to be listed in Editing Restrictions is for the same reason we don't have LOBU anymore: basically they just amount to gravedancing. At least, that's how I understand it. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 02:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Quick edit: I think the intent is that a community site-ban sanction be logged by adding the banned user template to the user page, which is what I was trying to do when I applied the template to Mzmadmike's userpage (which like you said, causes it to show up in the list of banned users category, which is what we would want). That's at least how I reconciled current practice (posting the CBAN template on a userpage) with what it says. Like I said, I'll make a post about it in the talk page. I almost think I should make a post at the village pump regarding revising the whole way we do community site bans. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 02:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Selected anniversaries/August 1Edit

Ottavio Bottecchia has been tagged with needing ref improvement. Can you help remedy that? Otherwise, if I can't fix it myself, I may be forced to replace him. Thanks. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 15:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I replaced him with Kurmanbek Bakiyev (b. 1949) as this will be his 70th birthday and the article is better referenced. Feel free, of course, to undo that or replace with a third person if you find someone better. Jonathunder (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2019Edit

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).

  Guideline and policy news



  • Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
  • The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

    Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2019Edit

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

  Administrator changes

  DESiegelJake WartenbergRjanagTopbanana

  CheckUser changes


  Oversight changes

  CallaneccFoxHJ MitchellLFaraoneThere'sNoTime

  Technical news

  • Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
  • The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Pete Buttigieg ProtectionEdit

Hi there,

I see in the history of the article that you AC-ed it today for a week, but the padlock doesn't seem to have appeared - could you confirm that you added the {{}} bit of it? Or that there isn't another issue at play?

It may need EC-protection if another AC-permissioned editor vandalises it.

Nosebagbear (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. When I've protected a page in the past, I think a bot or someone who attends to such things has applied the padlock, but to be perfectly honest, I haven't paid attention. Can anyone watching this page do what is needed or tell me what to do? Jonathunder (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Judging from a previous protection action, it looks like you have to add the Page protection template manually. | Uncle Milty | talk | 17:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 16Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Minnesota State Highway 277, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chippewa County (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Dorsey at LakewoodEdit

Today I made it to Lakewood Cemetery and came away with a not great but usable image. Maybe you can do better. I wondered if Lakewood accepts money for cleanup of graves. Most of her family is there but it's difficult to see exactly where. I couldn't find her brother Nebraska, the pianist. File:Dorsey_Lakewood_Cemetery_20190928.jpg. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

So good to hear from you again, Susan. Could I ask what time of day the photo was taken? Perhaps an overcast day later this fall will provide more even light and good color. I can try. Do you have the specific location of this marker? Jonathunder (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Greetings, Jonathunder the Kind. Burial Search for "Ida Dorsey" will yield a link to "Print Map" which is a map of Section 11. She's in Lot 506 which can be inferred to be close to "Priene." Priene is a small monument and I never saw "Bulmer" that the map labels. The tree might be the best landmark to help you find the Dorseys. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC) P.S. I think I made this one around noon. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2019Edit

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

  Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

  Technical news

  • As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.



  • The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Happy First edit day!Edit

  Hey, Jonathunder. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day!
PATH SLOPU 11:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Fifteen Year SocietyEdit

Dear Jonathunder,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. ​

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 01:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


Please remember to check Special:WhatLinksHere when moving a file without a redirect and update any links pointing to that file. In the case of File:2019-10-07DanFeehan.jpg, a redirect should have been left behind per WP:FILEREDIRECT and WP:PMRC. While you are the uploader and can change the file name to whatever you would like, "Overly long name" would generally fall under WP:FMNN unless the name was seriously approaching the 240 byte limit. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 11:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

There's no need for a redirect to the overly long name you came up with, as it will never be used. For one thing, it's not a unique description: the file on Commons is also of Feehan at a campaign announcement. You might have asked me before moving the file. Jonathunder (talk) 13:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Mia Native American Artists Edit-a-ThonEdit

Mia Native American Artists Edit-a-Thon

Hello Jonathunder. You are invited to attend a Native American Artists edit-a-thon at the Minneapolis Institute of Art (Mia) on Saturday, November 9, 2019, from 11am to 4pm. In celebration of Native American Heritage Month, join in honoring Native American artists whose work is represented in Mia's collections by creating or enhancing Wikipedia articles.

Thank you for the invitation, but I will be attending the WikiConference North America 2019. Jonathunder (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Public art in BostonEdit

Happy to continue the discussion on the Statue of Leif Erikson (Boston), but in the meantime, just wanted to thank you for your work expanding the article. Just FYI, if you're interested in public art/sculpture in Boston in general, I am currently using the project page Wikipedia:WikiProject Sculpture/Boston to expand List of public art in Boston and create articles about public artworks in the city. I'll be creating a similar list for Cambridge as well. I doing this work ahead and of the upcoming WikiConference and hope to continue creating many more pages! Thanks again for your help. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I plan to go to the same conference; perhaps I'll see you there. I found the monument when compiling a list of sites to visit and try to improve the photos, as I have long been interested in Leif Eriksson and Norse exploration in general, being from Minnesota and claiming descent from Vikings. Jonathunder (talk) 16:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Jonathunder, I'll be there!, so say hi if you see me around. I hope to visit some of these monuments as a walk around the city outside the conference. Whether or not you tackle any other public artwork articles, happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2019Edit

Edit rightsEdit

Hi there,

I see you made a change to my edit rights based on The SignPost article. I gave SmallBones the citation to the AN Closure Board of the ANI Review of all of these same allegations, but he did not use it. SoWhy, an uninvolved admin summarizing the admin consensus said Feinberg’s story was written by someone who “has no idea how Wikipedia works” and that I had not violated any Wikipedia policies or Terms of Use. [1]. Swarm, an admin who was involved in the discussion, did his own summary of the ANI review: "Eight admins have replied to the thread. All eight appear to be on the same page that the article is exaggerated sensationalism, and that the editor has not actually has done anything wrong. It has been suggested that the user should probably be more concise, but we haven't seen anything to support the notion that they're relentlessly argumentative or engage in "bludgeoning" behavior." [2] The ANI review included the PayTalk and bludgeoning accusations that Smallbones is bringing up again. Dozens of editors looked at every contribution I ever made and found no violation. My entire consulting practice is based on ethical behavior and strictly following Wikipedia policies.

Farrow says in the end notes to his book that the accusations against me are taken from the Huffington Post story. I don't see why changing my status is justified just because the press repeats the same accusations and finds Wikipedia's COI policies objectionable (that there is a sanctioned process for paid conflicted editors to propose changes and have them reviewed by independent Wikipedia editors).

Cheers, Ed BC1278 (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I simply don't see the need for the extended edit right on an account which is only used for paid advocacy. Jonathunder (talk) 19:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
If it's something you want to propose to your fellow admins for all self-declared paid editors, then that's understandable. To be frank, I don't understand the full implications of what you've done yet. Maybe it makes sense. My point is that more than any other paid editor in recent years, my work has already been poured over. So why treat me differently than other paid editors? BC1278 (talk) 01:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
And I certainly don't engage in WP: Advocacy. Much of my work consists of suggesting to other editors that they correct biased and inaccurate language and POV being flung at the subjects of articles. I often use the official channel just to ask for corrections. Some of the admins who actually looked at the accusations closely at ANI, like Swarm, said my work made Wikipedia more accurate. You're taking this action based on a newsletter column that's based on press accounts written by people who have no experience on Wikipedia. The columnist on Wired takes the position that anyone getting paid is engaging in "paid advocacy." He thinks he's making up a new term -- he doesn't know Wikipedia has its own policy with the same name. BC1278 (talk) 02:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia actually does not have a policy with that name. And you are certainly engaging in paid advocacy on behalf of your clients as e.g. defined by Jimmy Wales. I think Jonathunder made the right decision here. Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Adding my +1 as an admin in support of removing the extended rights too. Personally, I'm fine with uncontroversial paid editing (rather, proposed edits on the talk page as you do), the controversial editing and back-and-forth about proposed edits is much more problematic. tedder (talk) 03:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Just wanted to weigh in here to note that BC1278 (talk) has repeatedly mischaracterized the discussions that took place around the propriety of his editing behavior (and he steadfastly refuses to link to the full discussion for that very reason). The consensus seems to be that he's either completely unethical but manages to violate the spirit of Wikipedia guidelines without violating their letter, or that he's blatantly breaking the rules. He has a history of scrubbing his talk page, but has been repeatedly admonished by other editors for his aggressive advocacy in the past. DaRonPayne (talk) 02:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the advice from other admins. I have not examined BC1278's history in detail, much less taken a position on any disputes, so I think I remain uninvolved. I simply don't think an account for paid editing, which is mostly confined to talk pages, needs the extended edit right. I don't think what I did should really make much difference. Jonathunder (talk) 04:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

  Guideline and policy news

  • A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach processEdit


The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!Edit

  7&6=thirteen () has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.

To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen () 18:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Calvin BrownEdit

Hello Jonathunder,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Calvin Brown for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Kingsif (talk) 15:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Freedom Trail, licenseEdit

Hey, figured I'd follow up here since I'm going off-topic.

Did you wind up doing the whole Freedom Trail? I took a lot of pics at the Granary Burying Ground, Bunker Hill Monument, and the Skinny House, but just a few elsewhere. I feel like there are a lot of opportunities at Faneuil Hall, etc. if only I had a better lens with me or the light were more cooperative. :) I lived in Boston for a while, but never actually got around to most of the touristy stuff, so it was nice to come back (frigid though it was).

Also just curious if there's a story behind your choice of license? I'm not used to seeing that on new files, so just curious (I'm not someone who's particularly passionate about choice of license FWIW). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I walked only part of the trail, as there was so much to see and photograph. I want to visit Boston again and get more. As for why I choose the GFDL, it's because I've found in practice Creative Commons gets treated as Public Domain and with it work all too often gets reused elsewhere without attribution. Jonathunder (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
After Copp's Hill it's just the USS Constitution and Bunker Hill Monument. Much longer walks to those than the others, so a sensible cut-off point.
What about being GFDL leads people to either not use or actually provide attribution? Or is it by virtue of not being on Commons? I do see all manner of attribution (or non attribution) to my photos. Sometimes if I see that one's being used frequently I'll reverse image search it and find a bunch of low rent blogs, etc. using it without attribution (or e.g. "via Wikipedia"). Meh. It's annoying but I complain only when it's flagrant or a particularly high-profile publication (Huffington Post, etc. should know better). In a couple cases, nontrivial publications have even slapped their own name on it (!). Thankfully they're usually willing to fix their mistakes... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2019Edit

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).

  Administrator changes

  AkhilleusAthaenaraJohn VandenbergMelchoirMichaelQSchmidtNeilNYoungamerican😂

  CheckUser changes


  Interface administrator changes


  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

File:ChastenPeteButtigieg.jpg listed for discussionEdit

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ChastenPeteButtigieg.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (tc) 03:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy HolidaysEdit

  Thank you for continuing to make Wikipedia the greatest project in the world. I hope you have an excellent holiday season. Lightburst (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

If God played dice with the universe...Edit

...and initially bet on snake eyes with Eve, sending his son down to Earth to play rock paper scissors with its primates for awhile was one of his better ideas. Happiest of Christmas and New Year's to you and yours, and a blessed 2020 to follow! Randy Kryn (talk) 13:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2019Edit

Minneapolis RfCsEdit

Your input at 1, 2, or 3 would be welcome. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversaryEdit

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).

  Guideline and policy news



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Alexa Bliss file disputeEdit

Would it be better for me to back the deletion nomination (which is seemingly lacking) of the current file in question and re-upload it with a free license to remediate the "fair use" issue causing the other user to disruptively edit the article? It is a far higher quality image and without anyone else in frame, far more fitting for the article, in my opinion. ☧Catholic Laitinen ☧ (talk) 08:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Where did you get File:Lexi Kaufman Wikipedia.jpg? When you uploaded it, you wrote "This picture was taken at a public event" but you did not say who took the picture. That's important. Did you get it off the Internet? Jonathunder (talk) 11:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
No no, it's not off the Internet, the photo itself is mine. However, I am not in it and I felt it would be a better fit than the previous one which has others in the shot, appears grainy, etc ☧Catholic Laitinen ☧ (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
If you took it yourself with your camera, please say that in the deletion discussion. It may help to say what kind of camera you used and other circumstances you are willing to share. If you are indeed the photographer, the photo should not be deleted and you deserve thanks for uploading it. Jonathunder (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. If and when can the picture be restored to the article? Should I refrain from doing so until the deletion request is denied? ☧Catholic Laitinen ☧ (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
UPDATE: I re-uploaded the file with a free use license along with more information and restored it to use in the article. I removed my prior comments in the deletion discussion fighting the nomination and stated it now meets the "redundant file" criterion for speedy deletion. If the user who took issue with the fair use license removes it again, I will report them for disruptive editing. Thank you for your earlier assistance! ☧Catholic Laitinen ☧ (talk) 06:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your photo. It's better for the article than what was there before and I'm glad what I wrote was helpful. Jonathunder (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

No problem and thanks again! :) ☧Catholic Laitinen ☧ (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
@Jonathunder: Just when I thought it was over...Etacarinaee is again replacing my image with the grainy one, now claiming that my photo is inferior because it's a few months older. I'm concerned that they won't stop because they remove any warnings I put on their talk page. They also added unreferenced controversial biographical info to the article and it appears disruptive editing behavior extends back to at least October. Perhaps they've already been sufficiently warned to be blocked? ☧Catholic Laitinen ☧ (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Seems silly to revert to an inferior image, but if it happens again, don't edit war yourself; let me know or post on the article talk page. Jonathunder (talk) 02:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
@Jonathunder: Will do :) ☧Catholic Laitinen ☧ (talk) 03:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
@Jonathunder: Etacarinaee reverted to that inferior image again. My image has since been moved from the infobox to a lower section after a newer quality image was uploaded, but I thought you should still know the problematic behavior is continuing. [3] ☧Catholic Laitinen ☧ (talk) 00:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Since I agree your photo is better for the infobox I put it back there, but please don't leave the other editor messages implying they will be blocked. Instead, if reverted, please discuss on the article's talk page. Jonathunder (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jonathunder: Acknowledged :) ☧Catholic Laitinen ☧ (talk) 22:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!Edit

Mayo ClinicEdit

Hi, Jonathunder! If you recall, several months ago you offered feedback to my requested updates to History at Mayo Clinic. Based on your thoughts and those of another editor, I updated my request. However, no one has yet had a chance to review the proposed improvements. If you are still interested in editing articles about Mayo Clinic, I would really appreciate your feedback. Thanks! Audrey at Mayo Clinic (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


Hi Jonathunder, yesterday while you were making this photo I was right around the corner at HiFi records to see Steve McClellan. I remember walking by that building and seeing a wedding party gathered inside about 3pm. They were gone when I came back through a half hour later. Are you taking photos as a member of a WikiProject? -SusanLesch (talk) 13:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I was snooping around trying to close the Minneapolis RfCs. One down two to go. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 January 2020Edit

Intellectual disabiltyEdit

Hi Jonathunder. I respectfully disagree with your restoring "mental retardation". Yes, articles are written for nonspecialists, but that doesn't mean excessive weight needs to be placed on outdated terminology. See euphemism treadmill. Mental retardation redirects to the article, and the terminology is explained in much detail in the article. Since this is a medical article, and with WP:BRD in mind, I ask that you revert your edit and discuss on talk page where medical editors can discuss. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Alternatively, the term could be placed in parentheses: "Intellectual disability (ID), also known as general learning disability (and sometimes the outdated term "mental retardation) ..." That would at least let the reader know immediately that the term is rarely used by professionals. But I much prefer that it be removed completely, or at least discussed. Sundayclose (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
As the article discusses the term in detail, it should be mentioned in the lede and the brief mention there is not undue weight. But by all means go ahead and discuss further on the article talk page. Jonathunder (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Actually, considering that ICD-11 (which does not use the term) won't be released until 2022 I think I'll wait for its release to revisit the issue. Sundayclose (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

  Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
  • The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

  Technical news

  • Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
  • When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [4]


  • Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 March 2020Edit

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

  Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
  • A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

  Technical news

  • Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC on Minneapolis city historyEdit

Hi Jonathunder. Your help would help at Talk:Minneapolis#RFC_on_city_history. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on religionEdit

Dear User:Jonathunder, I hope this message finds you doing well. I note that you have uploaded many wonderful photographs related to WikiProject Christianity and was wondering if you know of any suitable images of traditional churches during the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. It would be nice to have one or two of them for the Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on religion article. I hope this helps and look forward to hearing from you. With regards, AnupamTalk 20:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Sign regarding COVID-19 on the front door of St. Martin’s by the Lake in Minnetonka Beach, Minnesota
Thank you for noticing my photographs and for the barnstar. Here is a photo I took this Sunday morning of a sign on the red door of an Episcopal Church announcing it is temporarily closed due to COVID-19. Perhaps it will be of use. Jonathunder (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
User:Jonathunder, thank you for taking this photograph. I really appreciate it and have added it to the article. Kind regards, AnupamTalk 23:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Christianity Barnstar
Dear Jonathunder, I award you The Christianity Barnstar for all your hard work in WikiProject Christianity-related articles, especially the high-quality photographs you have added to various articles such as chalking the door. Keep up the good work! Your efforts are making a difference here! With regards, AnupamTalk 20:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC))

The Signpost: 29 March 2020Edit

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

  Guideline and policy news

  • There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

  Technical news



  • The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2020Edit

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).

  Administrator changes


  CheckUser changes


  Oversight changes

  HJ Mitchell

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Louis DeJoy - appointed Postmaster GeneralEdit

Jonathunder - thank you for your message and guidance regarding my edits to Louis DeJoy. I am an independant logistics consultant that follows logistics organizations extensively; an industry he was in for many years. That is how I know of Mr. DeJoy. Over the past few days, my Louis DeJoy google alert has exploded my inbox, which is how I learned of Mr. DeJoy's appointment for Postmaster General. When I found his Wikipedia page, I was disappointed that the content appeared to be mostly negative leaning which prompted me to provide edits.

Since the first paragraph only spoke to Mr. DeJoy's major donations to the President and to the Republican Party, which some readers may view as negative, I felt it important to also highlight his philanthropic endevours through his family foundation which I would think is also relevant. Additionally, since there was no photo of Mr. DeJoy, I contacted his office to get the photo which I uploaded. That is the same photo they provided for the Business Journal article you reference and is owned by Mr. DeJoy, not the business journal. They advised me that the same photo was recently provided to the postal service for their use. I can provide a contact in Mr. DeJoy's office if needed to validate.

I am not familiar with the process for requesting that my edits be approved, and would appreciate your guidance or acceptance based on the above.

Thank you, --SMLwriter (talk) 02:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2020Edit

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).

  Administrator changes

  Anna FrodesiakBuckshot06RonhjonesSQL

  CheckUser changes


  Guideline and policy news


  • A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 7Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Craig Loya, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bruce Caldwell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ElmerLeeAndersonBW.jpgEdit


Thanks for uploading File:ElmerLeeAndersonBW.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 June 2020Edit

Administrators' newsletter – July 2020Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).

  Administrator changes

  Red Phoenix

  Oversight changes

  GB fan
  KeeganOpabinia regalisPremeditated Chaos

  Guideline and policy news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 August 2020Edit